IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/scippl/v40y2012i2p157-170.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Competition and concentration in the academic research industry: An empirical analysis of the sector dynamics in Australia 1990--2008

Author

Listed:
  • Maarja Beerkens

Abstract

In the last two or three decades, many countries have used various market instruments to steer and manage their academic research sector. Proponents of a market approach claim greater efficiency and sharper incentives while critics point to the peculiarity of the university sector that is likely to cause an inefficient stratification amongst universities. This paper applies a market convergence model to empirically test the hypothesis that competition leads to a more concentrated research industry. The results from Australia show that less research-intensive universities improve their research performance relatively faster, particularly in the early years of the policy reform. However, the lower performing universities have not been 'catching up' with the top performers but maximizing their individual potential, given their unique productivity constraints. We cannot confirm a 'winner-takes-all' process but there are signs of an increasing gap between universities, most likely due to accumulating advantages in the academic research sector. Copyright The Author 2012. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com, Oxford University Press.

Suggested Citation

  • Maarja Beerkens, 2012. "Competition and concentration in the academic research industry: An empirical analysis of the sector dynamics in Australia 1990--2008," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 40(2), pages 157-170, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:40:y:2012:i:2:p:157-170
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/scipol/scs076
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:40:y:2012:i:2:p:157-170. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/spp .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.